Transportation of goods – No penalty under Section 129 for taking longer route while also entering into another State

The GSTAT Bench at Varanasi has held the diversion of route to avoid complex situations arising due to hilly and difficult terrain/area in the shorter route, opting for a longer route does not mean that the assessee had intention to evade. It was noted that the statute does not require to disclose any specific route (as in earlier VAT regime), transportation was with valid documents as required and there was absence of mala fide intention of the taxpayer to evade the tax.

The Revenue department in the dispute Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Limited v. Joint Commissioner had contended that the longer route should never be preferred when shorter route is available, more so when another State is entered into through longer route. It was submitted that there was intention to evade inasmuch as the assessee entered into Uttar Pradesh (while using the longer route) without any plausible reason and was delivering the goods somewhere in UP.